The Limits of Trademark Protection in the European Union: Observations on the Rubik’s Cube and I ♥ Cases

The Limits of Trademark Protection in the European Union: Observations on the Rubik’s Cube and I ♥ Cases

July 9, 2025, will remain a landmark date in European case law on trademark law. The General Court of the European Union, sitting in Luxembourg, issued two emblematic rulings one after the other: on the one hand, it confirmed the annulment of trademarks related to the shape of the Rubik’s Cube; on the other hand, it rejected protection for the combination of a capital “I” and a red heart placed on clothing. Apparently two very different cases that, in fact, reflect the same logic: European Union trademarks cannot be used to monopolize either a technical solution or a sign that is too banal or descriptive.

1. The Institutional Framework: EUIPO and Judicial Review

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), based in Alicante (Spain), is responsible for registering EU trademarks and Community designs. Unlike national offices, it grants uniform protection throughout the territory of the Union.[1] However, EUIPO decisions can be appealed before the General Court of the European Union, which exercises a legality review, by issuing a first instance ruling, and, as a last resort, before the Court of Justice of the European Union on points of law.

A trademark is an essential asset for businesses, as it functions as a distinctive sign allowing them to identify and differentiate their goods or services from those of competitors. It may take various forms (word, logo, combination of numbers, slogan, three-dimensional shape, or even a sound or color), provided it is capable of distinguishing the commercial origin of goods or services. The value of a trademark lies in its essential function as an indication of origin, but it also plays an economic and strategic role: it constitutes a major intangible asset for its owner, contributes to brand recognition and customer loyalty, and grants its owner an exclusive right of use to fight against imitation and counterfeiting.

It is within this framework that the cases Spin Master Toys UK v. EUIPO (Rubik’s Cube) and sprd.net v. EUIPO (“I ♥” sign) fall.

2. The Rubik’s Cube Case: The Preeminence of Technical Function

The Rubik’s Cube dispute stems from several three-dimensional trademarks filed between 2008 and 2012 by the predecessor of Spin Master Toys UK to protect the representation of the cube and its colored faces. In 2013, Verdes Innovations challenged these registrations before EUIPO, requesting their annulment on the grounds that the signs consisted solely of features necessary to achieve a technical result and thus could not be protected as trademarks.

In its judgments of July 10, 2025 (joined cases T-1170/23, T-1171/23, T-1172/23, and T-1173/23, Spin Master Toys UK/EUIPO – Verdes Innovations), the EU General Court confirmed the Office’s analysis, finding that the grid structure, the differentiation of the faces, and the use of six basic colors represented the essential features of the sign and served exclusively a technical function: enabling manipulation of the cube and solving the puzzle through face rotation and distinction of the colored squares. The EU General Court therefore rejected Spin Master’s appeal and upheld the annulment of the registrations.

This reasoning is consistent with the fundamental principles of EU trademark law, set out in Article 4 of the EUTMR, which allows registration of any sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of another, provided it can be represented clearly and precisely. However, Article 7(1)(e)(ii) EUTMR excludes from protection signs consisting exclusively of features necessary for a product’s function. Thus, the essential features of the Rubik’s Cube—its cubic shape, the grid delimiting the small squares, and the differentiation of the colored squares—are deemed purely functional, while the six colors (red, blue, green, yellow, white, and orange) are not relevant in themselves but merely serve to distinguish the faces.

As a result, the Rubik’s Cube cannot be protected as an EU trademark because its shape is not arbitrary or aesthetic but dictated by technical necessity, depriving Spin Master of the protection it sought under trademark law.

3. The I ♥ Case: The Requirement of Distinctive Character

In this second case, sprd.net applied for the registration of trademarks consisting of a capital letter “I” followed by a red heart, placed on different parts of clothing such as the chest, nape, or label. EUIPO refused the applications on the grounds that the sign lacked distinctive character, a decision the General Court confirmed in its judgments of July 9, 2025 (cases T-304/24, T-305/24, and T-306/24, sprd.net/EUIPO).

The Court held that the sign “I ♥” is immediately understood by consumers as the expression “I love,” perceived not as an indication of commercial origin but as an affective or decorative message, and therefore incapable of fulfilling the essential function of a trademark. The particular placement of the sign on clothing—whether on the chest, the nape, or an inner label—does not add any distinctiveness, since the public still perceives the sign as a mere decorative motif.

This decision is based on Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR, which excludes from protection marks that lack distinctive character. Indeed, a trademark must serve to identify the commercial origin of a product, not simply decorate an object or convey a banal message. In this case, the sign in question fails to meet this requirement, being limited to a common and generic expression.

Consequently, the Court rejected sprd.net’s appeal and upheld the refusal of registration, meaning the “I ♥” logo cannot be protected as an EU trademark for clothing and the company cannot obtain a monopoly over this sign.

4. Jurisprudential Convergences: Technical Function and Distinctiveness

Despite their differences, these two cases demonstrate a clear jurisprudential consistency:

• Exclusion of functional signs. The Rubik’s Cube case illustrates the EU’s intent to prevent trademark protection from being misused to grant a potentially unlimited monopoly over a technical solution.
• Requirement of distinctiveness. The I ♥ case underscores that only signs capable of distinguishing the commercial origin of goods may qualify for trademark protection. Common, descriptive, or decorative symbols lacking originality are excluded.

These rulings reaffirm the strict boundary between different intellectual property rights: patents and designs protect technical innovation and aesthetics, while trademarks safeguard distinctiveness.

5. Critical Analysis: Economic, Legal, and Cultural Implications

From an economic perspective, these rulings limit strategies of extensive appropriation through trademark law. For Spin Master Toys, the impossibility of monopolizing the Rubik’s Cube’s shape increases competition in the three-dimensional puzzle market and reduces prices. Similarly, in the fashion industry, denying protection for the “I ♥” sign prevents privatization of an expression that has become universal and therefore all economic operators can use it, since it is not a trademark.

From a legal perspective, the Court reminds companies that trademarks cannot be used as instruments of unlimited protection for elements lacking real distinctiveness. This jurisprudence helps maintain the systemic coherence of European intellectual property law.

From a cultural perspective, it is about preserving collective access to symbols belonging to common heritage: the Rubik’s Cube as an emblematic object of popular culture, and the “I ♥” as a universal visual language. In this sense, the Court protects not only the market but also the public interest.

Conclusion

These two rulings send a clear message to European and international companies: creativity and fame are not enough to guarantee legal protection. To be registered, a trademark must display originality and distinctiveness beyond mere functionality or common usage. Spin Master Toys and sprd.net still have the possibility to appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union, limited to points of law. However, the line drawn by the General Court appears firm: only the genuine function of a trademark—that of indicating the commercial origin of a product—deserves protection.

Marie Vanswevelt

Lex IBC – 2025, All rights reserved. No text and data mining.

[1] EU trademarks coexist with national trademarks.